IR 05000346/1993021
| ML20058D955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1993 |
| From: | Burdick T, Clyde Osterholtz, Shepard D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D929 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-93-21, NUDOCS 9312060107 | |
| Download: ML20058D955 (8) | |
Text
\\
-
.
.
.
i
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUALTORY COMMISSION
REGION III
,
Report No. 50-3G/93021(DRS)
Docket No. 50-346 License Nc. NPF-3 Licensee: Centerior Energy Company c/o Toledo Edison Company 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652-0001 Facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
,
i Inspection At: Oak Harbor, OH
'
Inspection Conducted: November 1 - 5, 1993 Inspectors:
Y8 Il/MN3
'
,.
D. She afd
__
Date I
'
0(V ( t J H Q' O C. Osierholtz p 2te I
Approved By:
[
7 '/// >
T. Burdick, Chief Date Operator Licensing Section 2 i
Inspection Summary Inspection conducted on November 1 - 5. 1993 (Report No. 50-346/93021(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection of the licensed operator
>
requalification program to include a review of training administrative procedures, requalification training records and examination material; observation and evaluation of operator performance and of licensee evaluators
<
during requalification examination administration; an evaluation of the
'
program controls to assure a systems approach to training, remediation training administered; and an assessment of simulator fidelity. The inspectors used the guidance in Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/117.
.
Results: The inspectors concluded that the licensee was implementing the licensed operator requalificaticn training program in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 requirements and that operations and training management involvement with the process was a strength. (Section 2.1.1).
Attendance at required requalification training was good (Section 2.1.2).
Dynamic simulator i
examination scenarios met the guidelines of NUREG 1021 (Section 2.1.3).
9312060107 931124 PDR ADOCK0500g6 Q
,
-
_--
-
_ _.
.
_
_ - - _
. _.
_
._
.
.
.
.
.
.
Inspec' tion Summary
Operator performance was satisfactory during the annual dynamic simulator examination (Section 2.2).
Licensee evaluators were considered adequate (Section 2.3).
The requalification program contained evidence of being based on a systems approach to training (SAT) (Section 2.4).
Remediation training administered was good (Section 2.5).
Simulator fidelity was sr.isfactory (Section 2.6).
The licensee allowed a senior operator to exceed the 10 CFR 55.53(i) requirements for a biennial operator medical examination. This violation was cited as a Severity level 4 due to prior notice and not being self identified (Section 2.1.1).
!
!
>
)
-
I i
!
'
.
I
-
-
. -. _
-
.
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
I Northern States Power Company
+S. Jain, Nuclear Services Director
- +T. Bergner, Manager, Nuclear Training
- +S. Byrne, Manager, Plant Operations l
+D. Eshelman, Operations Superintendent
+G. Gibbs, Director Engineering
- +D. Miller, Senior Engineer, Licensing
-
+N. Peterson, Supervisor, Compliance
+A. Rabe, Supervisor, Quality Assurance
- +R. Simpkins, Supervisor, Operations Training Nuclear Reaulatory Commission
- S. Stasek, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the training management exit meeting on November 4, 1993.
+Denetes those present at the management inspection exit meeting on
!
l November 5, 1993.
'
'
l
.
Other persons were contacted as a matter of course during the inspection.
.
2.0 Introduction l
The purpose of this inspection was to assess the licensee's requalification
!
program for licensed operators to determine whether the program incorporated 10 CFR Part 55 requirements for evaluating operator mastery of training objectives and revising the program. The licensed operator requalification program assessment included a review of training administrative procedures, l
,
!
requalification training records, and examination material. The inspectors i
conducted an evaluation of operator performance and the ability of licensee i
l evaluators to administer and objectively evaluate during requalification
examinations.
In addition, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program l
controls to assure a systems approach to training and remediation training was
!
conducted.
Further, the inspectors assessed simulator fidelity.
,
2.1 Licensed Operator Reaualification Proaram Assessment
2.1.1 Procram Administration I
!
The inspectors concluded that the licensee was implementing the licensed operator requalification training program ia accordance with the licensee's administrative procedures. The inspectors identified the following strengths i
l regarding requalification program administration:
l i
t
!
!
!
i
__
l
-
.
I
.
.
Operations management involvement and commitment to training,
included operations management observation of cycle simulator evaluation for all crews.
- Operations and training management participation in crew evaluations during the annual dynamic simulator examinations.
- Attendance at requalification training had an appropriate high priority.
- The facility has reserved a block of simulator time each cycle to allow for crew's choice training. This gives the crews an opportunity to participate in the training's direction.
- Operations and training interface including training's responsiveness to the operation's training requirements.
l The licensee's tracking program to ensure that the desired systems and task training periodicity is maintained depends upon the two incumbent individuals and is not formalized. The present system could lead to required training not being scheduled. The licensee stated that it is looking into formalizing the training scheduling.
l The licensee allowed one operator's required biennial medical examination to exceed the two year periodicity by greater than nine months (from the last examination date of January 29, 1991 until discovered during the ir.spection).
Allowing the medical examinations to exceed two years is a violation of 10 CFR i
l 55.53(i) which requires the operators to have a biennial physical examination.
In addition, 15 operators exceeded the two year requirement by one to three
'
months between their last physical and the previous physical. The reason for
-
the 15 operators exceeding the two year period was a misinterpretation of the two year requirement. The licensee allowed a 90 day window from the license date rather then two years from the last physical date. Corrective action for the one individual included scheduling and performing a physical on November 5,1993 and not allowing the individual to perform unmonitored licensed duties prior to the physical examination. The individual's physical examination revealed no disqualifying medical conditions. The other 15 operators have had a physical examination within the past two years.
NRC Information Notice 91-08 issued February 5,1991 identified problems with licensed operators i
medical examinations.
l l
Examination security was effective in preventing examination compromise. The operators interviewed stated that examination security was not excessive or stressful.
The licensee does not have training management evaluate the trainers'
evaluation techniques for conducting in plant JPM's. The in plant JPM's
I require additional skills involving cuing; whereas, during simulator JPM's, l
the simulator provides the feedbac. _.-
_
--
-
.
_
.-.-
- - -. -.
..
-
-
-
--
,
.
,
'
!
-
!
2.1.2 Reoualification Trainino Records Review
,
The inspectors reviewed requalification training attendance records for the j
cycle years 92 and 93, and concluded that the selected licensed operators had
attended all scheduled requalification training or performed appropriate l
remediation as required by their program.
The facility's requalification
!
attendance sheets are structured such that it is difficult to verify whether i
any individual has missed training. The facility has stated that it is looking into a computer database to more easily track attendance.
2.1.3 Reaualification Examination Material Review l
The inspectors reviewed the dynamic simulator and JPM examinations to be administered during the week of November 1, 1993, and compared them with the l
l examinations administered other weeks in the exam cycle. The inspectors
'
l concluded that the examinations were adequate and of uniform quality throughout the cycle. The inspectors also noted that no overlap existed for i
the dynamic simulator and only minimal overlap for the JPM examinations for l
the exam cycle, r
i The inspectors made the following observations regarding the examination
!
material:
.'
e One crew critical task (scenario S130) required balancing HPI l
fl ow. The HPI flow did not require balancing'in the scenario as j
'
run and was therefore only a verification.
e One crew critical task of shutting the PORV when securing from HPI i
cooling was not identified by the licensee.
e The scenarios reviewed had adequate discrimination ability for I
competent to incompetent operators and were of high quality.
l i
e The dynamic scenarios did not have a discernable pattern which prevented the operators from predicting the sequence of events.
l l
'
l e
The JPM's reviewed were of appropriate quality. One JPM (1118)
had two steps requiring verification as critical. One JPM (17B)
had a confusing format in three of the steps.
l All procedures referenced in the licensee scenarios as contingency e
procedures did not meet the intent per NUREG 1021.
j 2.2 Ooerator Performance Evaluation l
i The inspectors evaluated the operators' performance during the dynamic j
simulator examination for the crews in training. The inspectors concluded that operator performance on the requalification enminations was satisfactory. The performance of the on shift operating crew was superior to the staff crew evaluated.
-
_
,
-
-
. - - -.. -... -.-. -.
-.
-
.
--
- -.-- - -
-
-
]
-
.
.
..
!
i
l 2.3 Evaluation of Licensee Evaluators j
The NRC inspectors and the licensee evaluators agreed on the overall l
assessment of operator performance. The inspectors concluded that the
licensee evaluators could adequately administer the requalification
!
examinations and objectively evaluate the performance of the operators.
i One scenario was terminated prior to the stated termination criteria; however,
all crew critical tasks and objectives of the scenario were evaluated.
2.4 System Aporoach to Trainina Controls The inspectors concluded that the licensee's program had controls in place to i
revise the training program as needed based on industry events (LERs), system
!
and procedure modifications, and student feedback.
>
The inspectors reviewed the training and examination material regarding l
Reactor Vessel water level control during refueling conditions.
Training on l
this event was considered to be adequate and timely.
l i
The inspectors identified that Davis-Besse LERs,92-001, -002, -003, -004, 93-
l 002, -003, and -004 were discussed in or planned for requalification training l
l in year 1993.
~
The inspectors also reviewed the process for students to provide feedback to i
the training program. A " Student Critique" form can be filled out by l
individuals at the end of a training week to express any concerns or suggestions regarding the training program. These forms are routinely l
reviewed by the training staff and any suggestions are incorporated as j
appropriate.
The requalification lead instructor documents negative comments or suggestions for change and an instructor contacts the_ individual directly to report on the comment's disposition.
Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the last two QA licensee audit reports of licensed operator requalification training. The audits appeared to use performance based techniques including audit of ongoing requalification training and critiques.
2.5 Remediation Trainino The inspectors reviewed three individual annual requalification examination failures and one crew simulator failure to assess the remediation process.
The licensee's program provided written documentation of individual and crew weaknesses. The document hcludes the required remediation and retest requirements for the individual and crew.
The crew's remediation included an evaluation of the command and control functions which contributed to the failures. The inspectors audited a training session for the crew and audited the evaluation scenarios used for returning the crew to licensed duties. The crew passed the reexamination as graded by both the NRC and the facility.
!
'
,
,,,
.
-
- - -.,,. - ~, -. - - - -. -,,,,,,,
i-..,.-,--,--,e,.
,
s
. - - - -.. - --+r
,.n
.~,
e-,ve-,
__
\\
-
'
.
.
!
.
'
2.6 Simulator Fidelity The inspectors concluded that simulator fidelity was satisfactory.
Two minor weaknesses which had no major effect on the examination process are identified in the enclosed Simulator Facility Report.
In addition, the simulator status boards contained incorrect information in two instances which were corrected after being questioned by the operators.
3.0 Exit Meetino The inspectors conducted exit meetings on November 4, 1993, with the training staff and on November 5,1993, with plant management at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station to discuss the major areas reviewed during the inspection, the strengths and weaknesses observed, and the inspection results.
Licensee representatives in attendance at the exit meetings are documented in Section 1.0 of this report. The team also discussed the likely informational
!
content of the inspection report with regard to documents reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any documents or processes as proprietary.
.__
i i
i
-
,
.
!
I
.
-
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Facility Licensee Docket No. 50-346
Operating Tests Administered On: Davis-Besse Plant Specific Simulator This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further
,
verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b).
!
These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the
,
l simulation facility other than to provide information that may be used in (
future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
'
I While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following
items were observed:
ITEM DESCRIPTION SPDS not update.
SPDS did not update during a cooldown during one scenario.
,
Phones not work.
Phones did not work for two locations on the R0 desk.
Included not being able to page the plant frcm one location and not being able to answer certain lines on another location.
i l
l t
l l
l l
l
_
_
/